Originally posted by Seekerof

You want to rely on fighter missiles to intercept incoming ICBM's/missile's, do so.

WHAT incoming missiles? Canada does NOT pick fights all over the world. Moreover, most of her land is uninhabited. The greatest danger facing Canada is her proximity to the world's biggest cowboy bully who's drawing heat from every psychopath looking for a target.

I do NOT live in fear. I do NOT fear unknown terrorists. I DO know that the gravest dangers we face come from the fact an inexperienced cowboy strutted onto the world stage and foolishly and arrogantly challenged all comers. Now it's payback time. Quelle surprise.

I only hope that his new-found interest in diplomacy will reap enough benefits fast enough to make a difference.



FYI - NORAD has been about missile defense since the Cold War. IMO - You guys just want new toys. Also IMO - there are other, more pressing priorities.



.

Canadians, by nature, are cynical and paranoid. Anything that has even the remotest appearance of ceding control over any aspect of our territory is abhorrent to the average Canadian.

To sign this agreement would have been political suicide for Paul Martin, and he worked a long time to get that job, and he doesn't want to give it up quite yet. From all I've read Quebec is very strongly against this program, and because of our parliamentary make-up, if you alienate Quebec, you're in really big trouble.

He's in a minority government and if he signed onto this program, this would very likely have caused the dissolution of his government. Even the Conservatives, who favour the program, wouldn't have let a chance to take power slip through their fingers. In my opinion, the Conservative Party's support of this program cost them votes. The sovereignty card was played over the last few days in the campaign up here, and this would have taken that card out of play in the re-run.

I have no doubt the Conservatives would have forced an election based on this issue, with every intention of signing on if they gained power. That's how the game is played up here.

If the US administration had played it smart and waited until Canada had another majority government, things may have turned out differently. I think there is a good chance that if George Bush hadn't brought the topic up in his visit, after our government had been told he wouldn't, and Frank McKenna hadn't forced Paul Martin's hand, we would have, very quietly, signed on. I, for one, believed that it was a done deal but up here, the political climate can change very quickly.

But whether we like it our not, you're going to do it, so does it really matter so much what we think? Saying no doesn't change things one bit, so it's not that big a deal, in my opinion.

Great! One more country where we have to protect their butt.

Canadians, by nature, are cynical and paranoid.

Well, hold on now. Speak for yourself!

Actually, I believe that Canadians' basic nature is pretty much the same as people everywhere. And how could it be otherwise, since Canadians originate from all over the world?

But let's not change the topic. The Liberals' "stand" on missile defence is still duplicitous and just plain in error.

A hostile vehicle flying over Canada will be shot down by US defenses. Both countries have nearly identical mutual security interests. The Canadians don't want to fund it, that's fine. A threat to the Canadian homeland is a threat to the American homeland and, in the end, vice versa. Just like no matter how far to the left Canada goes, they will never be wanting for proper protection.

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
Well, hold on now. Speak for yourself!

OK, most Canadians where I live. But in a good way. We tend not to take things at face value, and look for the hidden catch. Again, where I live anyways. I'm sure you are a lovely person, and quite capable of speaking for yourself. Sometimes, it can be a little to easy to generalize.

But let's not change the topic. The Liberals' "stand" on missile defence is still duplicitous and just plain in error.

I'll agree with the duplicitous part. They had every intention of signing up, until they realized they couldn't do it without causing a fuss. I thought we would sign on, simply because it will happen with or without us.

I just think that Paul Martin schemed too long to give up that job, and so he made the choice that would increase his chance of re-election. If this could have been done quietly, it would have been done. I don't doubt that for a minute.

Someone here mentioned it, and I've always wondered... since when did being called a "cowboy" become an insult? Cowboys have always been the knights of the new world... or is "knight" (Arturian) also an insult? I forget the exact quote but I've seen it over and over again, "Someone called Ronald Reagan a jingoistic cowboy... ... I think the world has long needed more cowboys."

Remember, Ronald Reagan largely won the cold war because of "star wars"... It didn't work, BUT... the Soviets THOUGHT it worked...

[edit on 25-2-2005 by AlphaHumana]

Airspace? I hardly think Canada is concerned with airspace on a matter of this impotance. soficrow makes valid points in my opinion.
I'm not a Bush hater why?, then I would have to admit going with the flow.

Perhap's the big picture is trying to understand and accept the reasons for needing a Missle Shield in the first place.

Was Mexico and Canada thought of BEFORE the big decisions were made over the years that would infuriate the mid-east, the nut balls and just about everyone else against the US and put everybody else in this region in danger. No, I think not.

I'm all for supporting the guy next door, accept when they are Dead Wrong.

Dallas

C (asking by registered surface mail)

If it is not headed for the U.S. we have no right to invade Canada's airspace.

I'd say you'd choose D, mainly because it doesn't make a difference whether you did or not because the interceptor would fail. This "Ballistic Missile Defence" doesn't even work so either way the bomb will hit me in Canada.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Ponderosa]

it so easy to so no.does it not feel so good to say no canada yep its does.

I'm Canadian and have no problem signing onto a missile defence program.... one that works. As it stands now, it is still in R&D and would just be a big money pit, of which we already have a few. Call us back when you actually have a plan, a working product, and some sort of enemy to defend against, then I'm sure we'd purchase a bunch of units. We don't need charity... it's mostly just for show though, cuz the nuke that goes off in the states is going to be brought into the country on a boat, then driven to the middle of Manhattan in a Winnibego and kaboom.... missile shield doesn't stop terrorists... and no country is crazy enough to launch at the US and face utter vapourization with the retaliation strike. However, they may 'lose' a small nuke and it may be 'found' by some nutball with a grudge against the US of A.... And for those of you thinking that your navy will stop that boat... how does all the cocaine and opium get into your country?

Gee, I feel so much safer now..... I can see the defense system from my office. And here I always thought it was an IMAX theatre cleverly disguised as an oversize golfball, with flashing lights.

What can I say, it was built in the eighties.......

The missile defence system. Hmmm. I would buy one of these systems
and put it in my back yard if you could prove to me that it was reliable.
Asking Canada to participate now is purely a Country with its hand out
for R&D money. We have canoe's for Navy Ships, old broken used subs, we
have shut more Airforce bases down than we have left and the few F18's
that we do have are out of date. Not to mention a fleet of Helicopters that are not airworthy and spend more time being repaired than are in the air. We don't have the budget to participate. Jean Chretien needs his personalized golf balls you know. They are very expensive.
I personally think we should participate. I don't know the terms involved.
Maybe there is no money required from us. Maybe you just need to install
these systems on land in the far North to cut any missle off over the ocean
before it gets here. I know that the Hypersonic cruise missle is being
developed by Nasa and Pratt & Whitney. It travels at Mach 6.5-8.5.
At those speeds, these missles from across the ocean will be eliminated
very quickly. My point is that we have no money to participate in these
programs. Yes, the US is our big brother and I thank God that you are there
for us. This world is going to hell in a handbasket really quickly. Who knows
how many terrorist cells we have here in Canada. They have all gone
completely underground by now. They are obviously intelligent enough
beat the systems in place that we have, but they know they are being
watched. How closely, who knows? Hopefully some of this black market
Russian nuke equipment will never make it here. I prey for this not to
happen.

Okay for this missile shield to be in any use, we need a threat. The cold war is over people! I can't see russia launching a missile over here. Like seriously, you people built a space station together! We don't have any more threats to north america. I think this would be a terrible waste of money for both countries. Im glad that our MPs finally made a good decision, other than where to put another community center named after them.

Who the hell is going to nuke Canada?

If a nuke is headed for Canada it's probably going to be some jury-rigged North Korean contraption aimed at the US that missed by a thousand miles or so - so yes I think we ought to shoot it down.

Provided we actually can, something I have grave doubts about.

Besides, Canada is under the US's nuclear umbrella anyway, whatever differences we may have. Canada is still our largest trading partner I believe, and also sits astride our largest land border. Any nuclear attack against Canada is likely to be viewed as the next-worst thing to a direct attack on the US, and it's likely to evoke a nuclear retaliation on the attacker by the US.

I would probably expect the same kind of response to a nuclear attack on other closely-allied non-nuclear countries like Japan or Australia. But in Canada's case it's pretty much a certainty.